On Unknowns Making Meaningful Contributions

[swansont]

Again, you're talking about actual science. Our understanding of mechanics and optics are likely to be pretty good, though even this is hardly a certainty. What about all those "scientific" fields that have very little experiment to support them?

Such as?

[DimaMazin]

I couldn't agree more. This is so amazingly frustrating to me -- when speculators show up and at best have a pop-sci poor analogy of what a theory actually says instead of any of the actual details.

 

I love the enthusiasm, and science absolutely craves new ideas. But some of that enthusiasm has to be directed toward learning about the current models that became the current models because they are working the best. And if you think your new idea is even better, you need to be able to show that your idea works even better -- so you need to know how well the current model works in order to justify the 'better'. It really is that simple, and yet, it is missed by a large majority of speculators here.

Idea earns money for all humanity.One even best speculator can't earn the same money without participation of people.

[EdEarl]

Our understanding of mechanics and optics are likely to be pretty good, though even this is hardly a certainty.

I googled "common misconceptions optics" and got many hits, and the same for mechanics. I personally doubt 1 in 100 people can name the simple machines, name the primary (additive and subtractive) colors, or know how many colors are in a rainbow.

 

Edited May 29, 2013 by EdEarl

[cladking]

 

Such as?

 

There are countless such areas and I fear I might be considered Off Topic if I mention the one I'm most familiar with but I'll include it as an example because of my familiarity. This really applies across the board so I don't like singling out any field to ridicule. In all fields there are numerous sincere, capable, and highly knowledgeable people. Perhaps one of the most laughable boondoggles of recent times was a movement back in the '80's to provide profoundly autistic people with "fascilitators". This was the ultimate in "ouije board" science as they actually sometimes used such devices to communicate with these people. Someone got it in his head that autistic people were merely trapped in their heads with no means to communicate and tens of thousands suddenly had "help" writing books and the like. Of course there was no communication.

 

Many people believe that "Egyptology" is a science but they'd very surprised to know that no books survive from the era of great pyramid building. No microscopic forensic analysis of any great pyramnid has ever been done. Most of the actual science that has been allowed to be done flies in the face of what they already "know". They've never even done simple infrared imaging of G1 which would positively show how it was built! There are natural formations growing on the walls below these pyramids but they haven't undergone simple testing to show what they are. There is ancient water under G1 in a man made system that has never been tested! ... and the area never excavated. But they all will shout down any ideas that don't fit their assumptions in unison and claim extensive evidence that it can't be true. The actual evidence, the little evidence they allow to be found, fails to support their assumptions. These are the facts. This isn't to say that they can't be right, merely that the evidence doesn't support it. Only interpretations of (some of) the evidence support the contentions. Many of the modern beliefs about the pyramids and ancient Egyptians didn't exist 2000 years ago. Some are even newer still.

[swansont]

To the best of my knowledge, facilitated communication is a fringe therapy/treatment that does not have the backing of science. If that's the kind of thing you mean, then I see what you're saying, but people pushing solutions based on anecdotes is the opposite of science. If there is little scientific evidence to support it, you can't regard it as accepted science. i.e. it's not a scientific field. It's fashionability and appeals to emotion that cause it to gain acceptance, much like Jenny McCarthy in recent times with the antivaxxers. I don't see this as masquerading as science, as far as scientists are concerned, and I certainly don't see how any of these people are making contributions to science.

[cladking]

I googled "common misconceptions optics" and got many hits, and the same for mechanics. I personally doubt 1 in 100 people can name the simple machines, name the primary (additive and subtractive) colors, or know how many colors are in a rainbow.

 

 

I meant scientists. Once you can get over the improbability of being able to see through a solid the rest of optics falls in place pretty well.

 

Rainbows can be exceedingly complex and over my head.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72868-rainbows-from-flames/?hl=rainbow

[swansont]

The way I think of it is in a hundred years most of what we know today will be overturned or rewritten. I'm just getting a headstart. A lot of what I studied in college is obsolete. Take a good look at the 1900 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It is highly dated.

 

Dated can be two things — it can mean it's wrong, or it can mean there have been additions to it. Science is always going to add to what we know.

 

I've long believed a huge component of scientific progress (to a lesser extent ancient science) is the simple availability of scientific gadgets and lab equipment. People play with this stuff and make insights into nature and it allows them to make the measurements that disclose unknowns. We are going to find that the computer/ internet/ google will be something of a "pandora's box" that unleashes the future and is a game changer of untold proportions. It was language that lifted man out of the caves and writing that led to the explosion of knowledge which caused the first game to end. It was the printing press that fueled the scientific revolution and brought about the industrial revolution in time. Now in short order instant communication and the ability to research anything at all will bring new revolutions that will change not only scientists but science as well.

 

This enhanced communication ability is a double-edged sword. New findings can be communicated quickly and broadly, and as ajb has noted, it makes not having a reasonable knowledge of the status of a field more of an untenable position than in the past. Still, the outsiders we see here don't do this — they generally have no clue, as others have also noted.

 

But crap gets communicated just as quickly and broadly, and without some ability to filter that out, you won't be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. That's another obstacle for the outsider to overcome, because they don't develop that filter. There are some interesting/amusing exchanges here between two crackpots, lauding each other's junk science (or occasionally spewing an amazing amount of vitriol)

[cladking]

To the best of my knowledge, facilitated communication is a fringe therapy/treatment that does not have the backing of science. If that's the kind of thing you mean, then I see what you're saying, but people pushing solutions based on anecdotes is the opposite of science. If there is little scientific evidence to support it, you can't regard it as accepted science. i.e. it's not a scientific field. It's fashionability and appeals to emotion that cause it to gain acceptance, much like Jenny McCarthy in recent times with the antivaxxers. I don't see this as masquerading as science, as far as scientists are concerned, and I certainly don't see how any of these people are making contributions to science.

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, facilitated communication is a fringe therapy/treatment that does not have the backing of science. If that's the kind of thing you mean, then I see what you're saying, but people pushing solutions based on anecdotes is the opposite of science. If there is little scientific evidence to support it, you can't regard it as accepted science. i.e. it's not a scientific field. It's fashionability and appeals to emotion that cause it to gain acceptance, much like Jenny McCarthy in recent times with the antivaxxers. I don't see this as masquerading as science, as far as scientists are concerned, and I certainly don't see how any of these people are making contributions to science.

 

Of course most of the excesses are on the very fringes of science but this hardly leaves any of science wholly unaffected. From global warming to the latest fads on eating right almost everything is affected to some degree. We are allowing manufacturers to pump sodium tripolyphosphate and water into all sorts of meat despite the fact that this chemical has no known benefits and has never been scientifically tested on humans. It comes from China with the sole purpose of cheating consumers by making them buy water and is only 98% pure. I shudder to think what these impurities are.

 

LTCM thought they invented a financial instrument that could only make money by predicting the future in 1996 and heralded the financial perturbations that resulted in great recession of 2008. Yet, these instruments are not only still legal but are continually being expanded. Their function is to make it possible to take million dollars out of a purse that holds no more than a thousand dollars. I seriously doubt mother nature is amused by any of this or any of the shenanigans going on but most have the blessing of science or scientists. We consume more energy and money to make alcohol than the energy it contains or its value. This is simple math yet no one is screaming bloody murder. We waste far more resources than what is needed so where is the science?

 

Financial resources in the sciences go to theory with military applications. Few corporations spend more than trifling amounts any longer on research.

 

None of this is to say there's something wrong with scientific theory or philosophy. The problems are in application, execution, metaphysics, and bases. Everyone owes it to himself and society to learn as much science as he can and is useful to that individual. Everyone should be a trained observer at the very least. All scientists should spend more effort separating what they believe from what is known.

 

 

Dated can be two things — it can mean it's wrong, or it can mean there have been additions to it. Science is always going to add to what we know.

 

 

This enhanced communication ability is a double-edged sword. New findings can be communicated quickly and broadly, and as ajb has noted, it makes not having a reasonable knowledge of the status of a field more of an untenable position than in the past. Still, the outsiders we see here don't do this — they generally have no clue, as others have also noted.

 

But crap gets communicated just as quickly and broadly, and without some ability to filter that out, you won't be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. That's another obstacle for the outsider to overcome, because they don't develop that filter. There are some interesting/amusing exchanges here between two crackpots, lauding each other's junk science (or occasionally spewing an amazing amount of vitriol)

 

Things that are false will tend to fail of their own.

 

It's very difficult now days to assess scientific theory as an outsider. I used to be something of an insider at one time but this was long ago. Now, the educational system failure has brought down the news media. There's no longer a good way for we outsiders to tell a real scientist from the wannabes. Even Hawking recently came out saying he's disproved a "Creator" so who can be trusted?

 

My own intersts are much narrower (and focused) than they were and cosmology won't interest me again until there's a unified field theory with experimental justification, probably.

 

I'm confident that search engines will rewrite most human endeavor much more quickly than people think is possible. The net will prove a revolutionary force.

[swansont]

Of course most of the excesses are on the very fringes of science but this hardly leaves any of science wholly unaffected. From global warming to the latest fads on eating right almost everything is affected to some degree. We are allowing manufacturers to pump sodium tripolyphosphate and water into all sorts of meat despite the fact that this chemical has no known benefits and has never been scientifically tested on humans. It comes from China with the sole purpose of cheating consumers by making them buy water and is only 98% pure. I shudder to think what these impurities are.

emphasis added

 

If it hasn't been scientifically tested, it's not a very good example of science of any sort.

 

 

 

LTCM thought they invented a financial instrument that could only make money by predicting the future in 1996 and heralded the financial perturbations that resulted in great recession of 2008. Yet, these instruments are not only still legal but are continually being expanded. Their function is to make it possible to take million dollars out of a purse that holds no more than a thousand dollars. I seriously doubt mother nature is amused by any of this or any of the shenanigans going on but most have the blessing of science or scientists. We consume more energy and money to make alcohol than the energy it contains or its value. This is simple math yet no one is screaming bloody murder. We waste far more resources than what is needed so where is the science?

Again, I fail to see what science is happening

 

Financial resources in the sciences go to theory with military applications. Few corporations spend more than trifling amounts any longer on research.

But they also tend to not hire outsiders, either. Not seeing this as any sort of endorsement of outsiders making a contribution.

[Bignose]

Again, you're talking about actual science. Our understanding of mechanics and optics are likely to be pretty good, though even this is hardly a certainty.

This sentiment is actually something I do post very often, too. That the simple truth is that the vast, vast majority of our current scientific understanding is wrong, or at the very least, fairly incomplete. This is just simple because we know that there are still open problems out there.

 

But, what we do know today will still be known tomorrow. Any future models will incorporate known results from today.

 

I still think that the best example is the improvement from Newtonian mechanics to special and general relativity. In short, Newtonian mechanics is amazingly accurate in the right domains. So long as objects aren't too massive, or moving too fast, or too small, Newtonian mechanics are an excellent fit to what we actually see. The theories of relativity did a good job fixing up the issues for the vary large scale things.

 

Now, here's the real kicker. If you take the equations of GR, and put into them masses that aren't moving anywhere near the speed of light, and masses that are pretty small (on a solar scale)... do you know what you get back out? Newtonian mechanics. The exact same tried and true equations.

 

So, in short, the improvement completely absorbed the original models. The improvement made predictions that also agreed with the predictions made by the old models that were very good under the correct circumstances.

 

This is why it is so so so very important that current good models are known by anyone who wants to replace them.

 

Any new model must replicate the successes of the current model. This is undeniable unless there is good evidence that someone has been falsifying data (a rare occurrence, but unfortunately something that has happened before). This is a point that so many speculators miss. That is there is a data point out there, their supposedly better model had better be able to predict it better than the current models, otherwise why would anyone abandon the current model for a worse one?

 

The advances in science has often led to existing data being re-evaluated, re-interpreted, or re-examined. But it doesn't destroy old data.

 

So, the next person who comes here and hates quantum mechanics (a particular favorite for the speculators to want to replace) that is fine... but the current predictions and experiments are out there to stay. They had better show how their idea makes predictions at least as good as QM today. And if their idea has an inconsistency with known data today... that is a giant problem. That is something that can't just be wished away or ignored.

 

This is why it is so important to know the current theories and the current data. Without this knowledge, it is very hard to discuss the idea, isn't it?

 

And all that is besides the fact that there is so much science that is built on the shoulders of giants before them. I don't understand the proclivity to ignore this slice of all the great minds that came before us today, too, but that is another topic for another day.

[cladking]

This sentiment is actually something I do post very often, too. That the simple truth is that the vast, vast majority of our current scientific understanding is wrong, or at the very least, fairly incomplete. This is just simple because we know that there are still open problems out there.

 

But, what we do know today will still be known tomorrow. Any future models will incorporate known results from today.

 

I still think that the best example is the improvement from Newtonian mechanics to special and general relativity. In short, Newtonian mechanics is amazingly accurate in the right domains. So long as objects aren't too massive, or moving too fast, or too small, Newtonian mechanics are an excellent fit to what we actually see. The theories of relativity did a good job fixing up the issues for the vary large scale things.

 

Now, here's the real kicker. If you take the equations of GR, and put into them masses that aren't moving anywhere near the speed of light, and masses that are pretty small (on a solar scale)... do you know what you get back out? Newtonian mechanics. The exact same tried and true equations.

 

So, in short, the improvement completely absorbed the original models. The improvement made predictions that also agreed with the predictions made by the old models that were very good under the correct circumstances.

 

This is why it is so so so very important that current good models are known by anyone who wants to replace them.

 

Any new model must replicate the successes of the current model. This is undeniable unless there is good evidence that someone has been falsifying data (a rare occurrence, but unfortunately something that has happened before). This is a point that so many speculators miss. That is there is a data point out there, their supposedly better model had better be able to predict it better than the current models, otherwise why would anyone abandon the current model for a worse one?

 

The advances in science has often led to existing data being re-evaluated, re-interpreted, or re-examined. But it doesn't destroy old data.

 

So, the next person who comes here and hates quantum mechanics (a particular favorite for the speculators to want to replace) that is fine... but the current predictions and experiments are out there to stay. They had better show how their idea makes predictions at least as good as QM today. And if their idea has an inconsistency with known data today... that is a giant problem. That is something that can't just be wished away or ignored.

 

This is why it is so important to know the current theories and the current data. Without this knowledge, it is very hard to discuss the idea, isn't it?

 

And all that is besides the fact that there is so much science that is built on the shoulders of giants before them. I don't understand the proclivity to ignore this slice of all the great minds that came before us today, too, but that is another topic for another day.

 

I'm actually in very close agreement except that I'm sure the truth will turn out to be far more complex than anyone can imagine. We know the tiniest fraction of 1% of everything there is to know and there's no certainty we'll ever have something approaching complete knowledge. It's entirely possible that even time and space have quantum characteristics. Perhaps all of reality is interchangeable as readily as mass and energy. Our knowledge might become seen as just a very simplistic way of understanding nature.

 

I believe we need a new tack to cosmology and and most cutting edge science because we are approaching the point where further progress is virtually impossible with current tools and current metaphysics. Of course new tools will be invented and new results will change our metaphysics but without an understanding of the basic forces progress might be impossible. Einstein thought he was on the verge nearly three quarters of a century ago yet here we remain. If he was correct and it hasn't happened in all this time it might be because we're at the limitation imposed by our tools.

 

There seems to be a widespread belief here that all science must be the result of connecting the dots and doing all the work. In real life most advancements are really much more the result of intuition and one simply doesn't need to be well versed in current research to have intuition. While be able to do the math and knowing cutting edge science are critical (probably) in cosmology and partical studies it is far less important in the fringes of science. There is simply no reason someone can't bypass decades of science by making some lucky connection. If this occurs the individual will need knowledge and logic but the knowledge might be more visceral than quantifiable. Nature displays her secrets for all to see and maybe it will simply take a slightly different perspective for someone to discover the connection between gravity and the other forces. Maybe the connection is only they are unique in some unknown way, or in all ways.

 

The inability of some people to express themselves in math does not negate their ideas. In some areas there's a distinct tendency to dismiss new ideas simply because they are new. I suppose I'm just rambling but my perspective is very different than most peoples'. It may not have happened yet but one day someone will come along and post some crazy new idea on this site or one like it that will be a small leap forward. I'm hardly qualified to spot it but I can tell if something rings true or not.

 

emphasis added

 

If it hasn't been scientifically tested, it's not a very good example of science of any sort.

 

 

 

 

Again, I fail to see what science is happening

 

 

But they also tend to not hire outsiders, either. Not seeing this as any sort of endorsement of outsiders making a contribution.

 

This is my point, though; much of what we call "science" is not. We don't live in a "scientific" era but rather a technological era.

 

It isn't science we should be promoting so much as the type of thinking engendered by science. Instead we waste resources and despoil the planet while preparing for war.

[Delta1212]

 

This is my point, though; much of what we call "science" is not.

Who is the "we" in this sentence, because I don't call any of your examples science.

 

 

Also, I'm posting from an iPad and accidentally gave your post negative rep when I meant to hit Quote. If someone wouldn't mind zeroing that out for me, I'd appreciate it.

[Bignose]

I believe we need a new tack to cosmology and and most cutting edge science because we are approaching the point where further progress is virtually impossible with current tools and current metaphysics.

I frankly don't care what tools you choose to use. Science wants to see your tools make predictions and then compare those predictions to measurements. If your tools can do that, then science away.

 

Metaphysics to date hasn't demonstrated a lot of usefulness in that, but I am open minded enough that if someone can demonstrate how metaphysics can make objective clear-cut predictions, then I am all ears.

 

There seems to be a widespread belief here that all science must be the result of connecting the dots and doing all the work. In real life most advancements are really much more the result of intuition and one simply doesn't need to be well versed in current research to have intuition.

I think you really need to quantify 'most' here. I suspect you'll find that there are an awful lot of incremental advancements than these giant leaps than you think. In other words, please present evidence that supports the use of the word 'most'.

 

Intuition and all that is fine. But, all the way back to my first post, it still takes a lot of work to make that intuition meaningful. Because one has to learn what is and isn't meaningful in the context of the problem.

 

And intuition alone can be very, very misleading. There is quite a lot about physics that can be downright un-intuitive. One develops a good physics intuition by actually studying physics.

 

And that's where the math comes in.

 

This is another of my favorite soliloquies on here, but i'm going to repeat it again. Words can be great. There are numerous absolute classics of literature written in just words. But part of what makes so many of them great is how they are constantly reinterpreted and reevaluated in different contexts. In no small part of that is because words have different meanings to different people.

 

This is why math is so, so, so very preferred.

 

Here is a favorite example.

 

If I walked into the room you are in carrying a box, put that box down in front of you and said "that box is heavy." what does that really mean? What is I were an Olympic weightlifter? What if I were a ballet dancer? And so on.

 

Now, what if I said "the force of gravity on this box is 500 N." That leaves no room for interpretation. That box is not 50 N, not 5000 N. But 500 N. Whether I, you, or anyone else can lift 500 N with ease, or really struggle with it.

 

There are no words that so exactly convey the information that the force of gravity on that box is 500 N.

 

How this relates is that if I have two models, model A predicts the box will feel 38.5 N of force due to gravity and model B predicts the box will experience 502.1 N of force, clearly one of those models is superior to another. I can actually measure how much error exists between the predictions and the measurements. And someday, if an even better model comes along and predicts 499.89 N, then it will displace the other model.

 

If you can write words to replicate the exactness of the above, I would be very interested to see it. No one has been able to meet that challenge all the other times I've presented it.

 

In other words, the math gives you those objective, clear-cut, non-fungible predictions. Words will never be that precise.

 

The words can be the beginning of a good idea. But, words alone are almost never science. Science is making accurate predictions about measurements. The language of that is mathematics.

 

Lastly, there is no shame in not personally being able to do the mathematics. Each of us have different strengths and weaknesses. But know that without the mathematics, it will be of very limited use to science. That is just how it is.

 

In the same way, I will never be able to make anything useful to the communities of ballet dancing, Olympic weightlifting, and numerous other communities. That is just how it is.

[studiot]

If you can write words to replicate the exactness of the above, I would be very interested to see it. No one has been able to meet that challenge all the other times I've presented it.

 

 

 

Good morning, Bignose, I do believe a gentleman called Newton accepted your challenge in sixteen forty something when he enunciated what we now call his first law.

 

go well

[swansont]

I wonder if the art community gets the same treatment. People showing up, saying that they have a great contribution to make, but they can't sculpt, draw or paint. They'll just describe in words what the art will look like.

[Bignose]

Good morning, Bignose, I do believe a gentleman called Newton accepted your challenge in sixteen forty something when he enunciated what we now call his first law.

 

go well

Go and open any statics textbook. How deep into that book do you think you are going to get until you have an equation. Newton's First Law at its heart is a math equation.

 

For example, repeated application of Newton's First Law helps find the forces a strut in a bridge experience. The new force on that strut is zero (assuming the bridge ins't collapsing), but words alone cannot tell me what forces that strut will experience and hence what it needs to be made out of.

[studiot]

Well obviously the university I went to counts differently from yourself.

 

I learned, in rather quaint terms, that the whole point of of Newtons first law is that it is qualitative, not quantitative.

 

So there is no doubt as to what I am referring I mean, in modern parlance,

 

"A body will continue in its state of motion or rest unless acted upon by a force"

 

go well

Edited May 30, 2013 by studiot

[swansont]

Well obviously the university I went to counts differently from yourself.

 

I learned, in rather quaint terms, that the whole point of of Newtons first law is that it is qualitative, not quantitative.

 

So there is no doubt as to what I am referring I mean, in modern parlance,

 

"A body will continue in its state of motion or rest unless acted upon by a force"

 

go well

 

 

And that does not give you the exactness of Newton's second law, which means it fails Bignose's challenge.

 

It does give you information though, and is mathematical in nature: a is related to F in some direct way, since a force is required to change velocity.

[studiot]

And that does not give you the exactness of Newton's second law, which means it fails Bignose's challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

It does give you information though, and is mathematical in nature: a is related to F in some direct way, since a force is required to change velocity.

 

 

 

 

Pardon me?

 

I offered Newton's First Law as an example of a non mathematical statement of value in physics, not his second or third or any of his other work.

 

It makes no claim whatsoever about any relationship between any acting force, it merely asserts that one must act. Its form does not preclude purely random effect or state that the effect must be the same every time or on every body.

 

It, in my book, in non mathematical and quite a few distinguished mechanics texts go out of their way to stress this, including one by Nobel winner Wolczek who uses this fact explicitly to develop his own modern theories.

 

 

go well

Edited May 30, 2013 by studiot

[Delta1212]

Well obviously the university I went to counts differently from yourself.

 

I learned, in rather quaint terms, that the whole point of of Newtons first law is that it is qualitative, not quantitative.

 

So there is no doubt as to what I am referring I mean, in modern parlance,

 

"A body will continue in its state of motion or rest unless acted upon by a force"

 

go well

That actually has implicit mathematical exactness. If force equals zero, then acceleration equals zero.

 

I disagree with Bignose on the premise that words can't convey mathematical exactness, but I do agree that any claim must convey mathematical exactness in order to be testable, and any claim that isn't testable isn't scientifically useful.

[studiot]

That actually has implicit mathematical exactness. If force equals zero, then acceleration equals zero.

 

 

 

 

But that is not what the words said.

[swansont]

Pardon me?

 

I offered Newton's First Law as an example of a non mathematical statement of value in physics, not his second or third or any of his other work.

Yes. Bignose had offered a challenge "If you can write words to replicate the exactness of the above, I would be very interested to see it."

 

Newton's first law is not as exact as the second law. The second law lets you calculate actual results. The first does not. So I'm failing to see how one can think that this rises to the challenge.

It makes no claim whatsoever about any relationship between any acting force, it merely asserts that one must act. Its form does not preclude purely random effect or state that the effect must be the same every time or on every body.

Yes. Meaning it is imprecise in calculating results. Both tell you that if F=0 then a=0, but the first law will not allow you to calculate the speed of a 1 kg object subjected to a 3 N force for 5 seconds.